Modern mass rapid transit rail systems are very effective carriers of people. They are generally grade separated systems to enable vehicles to operate unaffected by automobile traffic, and thereby are able to achieve traffic densities otherwise unachievable. They are, however, very expensive. A typical, but conservative order of magnitude system capital cost for a system is approximately $100 million per bi-directional track mile of system, making it difficult for all but the largest and/or most affluent communities and cities to justify and/or afford the cost of new construction. This limitation has the effect of constraining the reach of these systems, and thus limiting the convenience to the users who can only ride the systems to the few locations to which guideway has been constructed. This results in a classic case of Catch 22. The high cost of systems requires a high ridership to justify the cost. However, high guideway costs limit construction and thus the reach of fixed guideway systems. This limits convenience to the riders, making it difficult to achieve the high ridership needed to justify the high cost.
Conventional mass rapid transit rail technology attempts to improve the ratio of benefits per unit cost by focusing on serving the commuting public. This means building systems to achieve very high passenger capacities to major employment centers. An example conventional system is shown in FIG. 1. As shown, conventional systems 110 achieve high capacities by building heavy infrastructure and operating long heavy trains 112 that typically carry a large number of riders to the few large employment centers that they can most effectively service, while bypassing smaller towns or communities. This, however, requires very costly guideway 122 and station structures 124, which limits the system's reach and thus convenience for the users, especially for those who want to travel to the generally more widely distributed retail, residential, or recreational destinations.
With guideway 122 and station structures 124 that must be built to handle long heavy trains 112 to support demand during commute hours, the result is an expensive but marginally justifiable solution for commute hour travel which is far too expensive to justify for other periods of the day and other destinations.
Other existing transportation systems that aim to be less expensive to build and operate include automated people mover (APM) systems, such as those operating in many modern airports and some cities. These systems are low speed/low capacity systems that operate driverless vehicles at speeds in the range of 25 to 30 mph and achieve line capacities in the range of 2,000 to 3,000 passengers per hour per direction. Given the limited speed and capacity of these systems, even with the somewhat lower cost of construction due to the use of smaller vehicles, the benefit per cost is still poor. Furthermore, with the lower speeds and line capacities, these systems are limited in utility to local service routes.
Another type of transportation system that has been discussed is called “personal rapid transit” (PRT). PRT's differ from the more common APM systems in that these systems are built with offline stations which allow higher traffic densities to be achieved. Typically these systems operate driverless cars that seat four to six people and can provide service on a personal demand-driven basis. However, with the very small cars, high speeds are difficult to achieve and line capacities are severely restricted. There is one PRT that is operating at West Virginia University, the Morgantown PRT, which is an 8.2 mile long system having cars that seat 20 people. With a claim of 15 second headways, a line capacity of 4,800 passengers per hour per direction can be achieved. With rubber-tired vehicles, however, the top speed of the system is 30 mph thus limiting its applicability to low speed local service lines.
Co-pending application Ser. No. 13/218,422, the contents of which are incorporated by reference in their entirety, dramatically advanced the state of the art by providing a fixed guideway transportation system that can overcome many of the above and other challenges of the prior art. For example, the system of the co-pending application includes driverless vehicles carrying 10 to 30 persons designed for optimal ratio of benefits per cost. However, certain challenges remain.
For example, in order to cost effectively build and operate a system that operates smaller vehicles such as those contemplated by the co-pending application, yet achieves line capacities that justify the cost of constructing track infrastructures, the density of traffic that can be achieved needs to be sufficiently high. That means that safe operating headways must be made smaller than those achievable with conventional control systems that represent today's state of the art. Furthermore, these safe operating headways should be achieved at mass rapid transit speeds (at least 60 mph). This cannot be achieved with current systems.
Safe operation further requires that vehicles must always be able to stop before arriving at obstacles on the track. With all track geometries (i.e. grade, track curvature) being equal, the greatest restriction will occur where there are fixed obstacles (i.e. zero speed obstacles) in the path of the vehicle. Therefore, in order to achieve high traffic densities, it is desirable to eliminate the existence of fixed location obstacles on the track, such as switch points between tracks.
Relatedly, since a collision between two vehicles is a life-threatening event, control functions that prevent collisions are critical to safety. In the rail industry, control that is critical to safety must be designed and implemented to a standard commonly referred to as “vital.” In recent years achieving vital status has required an analytical demonstration of a Mean Time Between Unsafe Event or Hazard (MTBH) of 109 hours or greater. Accordingly, any methodology aimed at increasing traffic density by removing fixed obstacles such as track switches should include collision protection satisfying this standard.
Furthermore, the impact of the conventional “brick wall criteria” on capacity is non-linear with the impact increasing rapidly at speeds that exceed about 15 mph. The reason for this is because headway is conventionally calculated as the time separation between the nose of the leading car to the nose of the trailing car so that the calculated headway can be simply converted to line capacity (vehicles per hour) by dividing the number of seconds in an hour by the headway measured in seconds. Determining headway is thus performed by calculating the time required for the trailing vehicle to traverse headway distance, the sum of the safe separation following distance and the length of the leading vehicle.
At low speeds, the length of the leading vehicle, a fixed length, can be large relative to the separation distance. Thus as the speed increases, the time to travel the headway distance becomes shorter. However, as the speed increases, the separation following distance becomes the predominant component of the headway distance since this distance increases with the square of the velocity. The headway, which is calculated by dividing the headway distance by the velocity of the trailing vehicle, thus increases roughly linearly with velocity.
A need remains, therefore, for enabling technologies that permit greater headways at higher speeds, while insuring against collisions between vehicles in compliance with required vital criteria.